Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

"One of the things that really resonated for me about Into Darkness was the fact that, like the best Star Trek stories, the film has an important, and very relevant message at its heart, about not throwing away our ideals when confronted with dangerous threats to our civilization and a strong indictment of Cheney-esque and Rumsfeldian politics. In a free society, our democracy cannot just be words on a piece of paper, but have real meaning that we live by … even when inconvenient."

Personally I think that because they are couched with big budget CGI and action scenes and don't spend 1 hour and 50 minutes discussing the deeper story in a conference room that the movies are "brain dead".

We can have a good story AND good action equally as far as I'm concerned. We move at a faster pace now then we did in the 90's and certainly in the 60's. Old talky Star Trek is just going to bore people and even more so if you are paying money for a movie.

You are just going to have become those people you swore you'd never be (your parents) and move into back-in-my-day-ville.

Trek fans have been making excuses for bad storytelling since the 1960's.

That doesn't make it right!

So what?

It does make attempts to compare nuTrek unfavorably to oldTrek wrong on this score.

Frankly, someone could come along and produce an Oscar-winning Star Trek film that was internationally hailed as a masterpiece and knocked Avatar off to become the most successful film in history...and some trek fans would call it "an okay film but bad Star Trek" because it was different and didn't respect "canon."

But Prime Kirk likely had other commands before getting the Enterprise. Dehner mentions a 'first command' in "Where No Man..."

Plus, Picard got the Stargazer at twenty-eight.

Neither of those men necessarily had to have the RANK of Captain when they had the position of it. Kirk Prime could have received his first command as a Commander or Lieutenant Commander. Same for Picard. (We saw this happen with Dax on DS9. When she commanded the Defiant, she was addressed as Captain, yet she was a LCDR by rank.)

__________________
"But here you are, in the ninth
Two men out and three men on
Nowhere to look but inside
Where we all respond to PRESSURE!" - Billy Joel

But Prime Kirk likely had other commands before getting the Enterprise. Dehner mentions a 'first command' in "Where No Man..."

Plus, Picard got the Stargazer at twenty-eight.

But neither of those men necessarily had to have the RANK of Captain when they had the position of it. Kirk could have had his first command as, say, a Commander or Lieutenant Commander. Same for Picard. We just don't know for sure.

No we don't. But I would point to TMP as evidence that rank doesn't matter when captaining a starship. Admiral Kirk wore captain's stripes when he took over command of the Enterprise.

Captains may simply wear captains stripes when assigned command. Or maybe not. But Kirk being a "captain" doesn't really destroy the movie for me.